The need for anonymity in a digital age

Share This article

Last week, while speaking at a panel on social media, Facebook’s director of marketing, Randi Zuckerberg, poured digital napalm over the ongoing debate concerning online anonymity. “I think anonymity on the Internet has to go away,” said Zuckerburg. “People behave a lot better when they have their real names down. … I think people hide behind anonymity and they feel like they can say whatever they want behind closed doors.”

Facebook’s CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, has made similar statements in the past. A year ago, Google’s CEO Eric Schmidt made similar remarks: “The only way to manage this is true transparency and no anonymity,” Schmidt said. “In a world of asynchronous threats, it is too dangerous for there not to be some way to identify you. We need a [verified] name service for people. Governments will demand it.”

The internet and the rise of modern computing do challenge the value of anonymity, but don’t be fooled by the digital dross. Modern technology is fundamentally reshaping the economic value of transparency, but Zuckerberg and Schmidt are both arguing against anonymity based on the presence of an extenuating circumstance. Social networks and “asynchronous threats” are variations on a theme, not fundamentally new problems.

The Supreme Court of the United States has consistently held that anonymity is a vital underpinning of the right to free speech. In Talley v. California (1960), Justice Black wrote: “Persecuted groups and sects… throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all.” The Supreme Court later revisited this concept in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission (1995), writing: “The decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one’s privacy as possible.”

Civilized discussion, however noble a goal it may be, will never trump the value of free speech. Schmidt’s attempt to paint “asynchronous threats” as so dangerous as to obviate the value of anonymity and/or freedom of speech is little more than an old argument made in modern language. In the 1950s, the threat was communism. During World War II, fascism. During WWI, the threat was Bolshevism. At every point of conflict throughout history, there have been those who insisted that anonymity was too great a security risk.

Anonymity as an Economic Resource

The economic value of anonymity, on the other hand, is new. Facebook and Google have every economic reason in the world to call for an end to online anonymity. Requiring the use of real names is the most obvious blow against the concept of anonymity, but it’s not necessarily the most valuable. Being able to tell an advertiser hyping a new MMO that 75% of the people who clicked on an ad were male while just 25 percent were female and that 90 percent of the individuals were in the 18-24 age bracket is valuable. Knowing that World of Warcraft fans were 5x more likely to click on your ads than gamers who listed Eve Online or Star Wars: The Old Republic, however, is worth a lot more and tells the company that advertising on supplemental information sites for WoW is a much better idea than investing in sites that cater to the other two games.

Facebook and Google predict a future in which companies use their intimate knowledge of each individual’s preferences to custom-tailor products or services with the push of a button. Cumbersome processes, like airline travel, are streamlined, while product advertisements are precisely targeted. It sounds great — but there’s a catch. Such visions of the future imply that individuals, not corporations, retain ultimate control of how their personal information is used and who its shared with.

Even now, that’s not the case. Connect your Facebook account to a new app or game, for example, and you’ll likely see something like this:

Any user who clicks ‘Allow’ trades an enormous amount of valuable personal data for the digital equivalent of some glass beads and a few blankets. There’s no line-item veto and no negotiation with either the app developer or Facebook. Should one or both of the companies decide to change either their privacy policies or Terms and Conditions, end-users will be stuck either ‘Allowing’ or not.

With individual control absent, the streamlined travel example mentioned above could play out very differently. Instead of a simple one-click option for booking, seating, and travel dates, imagine being hit with offers from six different travel companies simultaneously, each claiming to provide the best perks, features, and discounts customized to fit your needs. The idea of a customized, friendly relationship with a group of trusted companies sounds great compared to the hurricane of mass-market advertising we live inside today — but a great deal less desirable if that ‘partnership’ encloses everyone in their own personal tornado.

The point here isn’t to tar Google and Facebook, but to illustrate the importance of anonymity in the digital age. If anything, it’s more important than ever that people be able to exercise control over how their personal information is distributed, shared, and sold. The digital age has made transparency far more economically valuable than it’s ever been before — but it’s important that control of that value remain in the hands of the individuals to whom it belongs.

Tagged In

Post a Comment

Anonymous

If what you have to say is unpopular, it may be costly to speak up under your own name. Anonymity has been a mainstay of social discourse from the earliest times of publication. As an atheist in a small and predominately Christian community, I have to be very circumspect in my public comments to avoid ostracism and adverse impact on my secular activities from so-called “Christians”, Islamists or others of fanatical belief. Speaking to maintain secularist practice in government policy and function can extract a heavy toll.

Richard Jones

I think there are a few things missing here. First, the assumption that all people on the internet should maintain their anonymity also assume that all people on the internet are all honest, law-abiding citizens. Anyone on this website should understand that there are real threats, from people, across every portion of the internet. While I too would like to maintain my anonymity, I also believe that there needs to be security as well. As it stands, the internet is lawless. All truly illegal acts are very difficult to prove in any court around the world, and criminals with malicious intents continue to roam free. Don’t get me wrong though, the user is just as to blame for this as well. The belief that everything you do on the internet is fully safe because no one knows who you are is a myth that has gotten more people into trouble than anyone can imagine. Just ask anyone who has had their identity stolen over the internet. The worst part is that legally, there is nothing they can do. I understand the argument of needing a place to speak your mind without fear of reprisal, but it is high time for the pendulum to swing the other way and bring law and order to this new domain.

Joel Hruska

Richard,

I think you misunderstand what the article is driving at. No one is claiming that security is unimportant, or that all users should be perfectly anonymous (this last is technologically impossible, in any case). The point, rather, is that the supposedly new security threats are nothing but old security threats dressed up in a fresh coat of paint.

If you want a good example of this, read up on the debates that surrounded phone tapping when it became technologically possible. I guarantee you that you’ll find court cases and Congressional debates in which lawmakers and police / FBI both argued that they need broad, unrestrained powers that allowed them to order wiretaps without benefit of due process or the need to get a warrant.

Obviously the Patriot Act actually *did* give ground on this topic, but if you read over the language used 60 years ago to justify wiretaps and warrantless searches then, you’ll find it’s all-but identical to language used today. Today’s “asynchronous threats” were yesterday’s “communist sympathizers.”

Joey Spinosa

The whole concept of individual privacy and security on the internet has troubled me for quite sometime now. I like the tag in the article essentially saying “if you click yes, or allow, or next, to continue, you will give up dearly prized personal information in return for the equivilent of some useless beads of internet access…” I’m paraphrasing. How true! It always seems that the sites or services that want the most information from you, are the ones offering free, or nearly free software, service, or access.

So, the price for “getting something for free” on the internet, is giving up personal information, or putting up with ads, etc.

That’s always troubled me. Now then, I spend a good deal of time speaking with young adults, college students, my own kids and grandkids, about technology. I want to know what they know, and I want to see how they use the internet.

Practically without exception, the young adults and college kids I speak to are completely unconcerned with privacy issues on the internet. Most young adults and college kids are at the beginning of their “life’s earnings” so, as a result, they don’t have large sums of money in bank accounts, retirement plans, “money at risk” so to speak. So, they could care less. Go ahead, steal my identity! There’s no credit rating in the first place… These kids are also big users of the internet, and perpetually in need of funds (kids have always been this way) they are always looking to get something online for free. When I sit down with these kids and explain how long-term this can be a disaster, they remind me of something I have overlooked. They lie. When a site asks their age-group, or annual income, or anything else for that matter, they crack a beer and type in whatever they fancy at the time. “Ya, today I’m a 57 year old while male, make between 45-70k, have 3 kids and live in New Jersey!”

They’re not just anonymous on the internet, they are 25 differnt people. No wonder advertisers and folks at Google and Facebook want to cut through the crap. They are skilled at avoiding being tracked by IP addresses and so forth. They ignore ads, and anything they perceived as “targeted”. They are a clever group. Skilled at researching and finding what they need at the best price. They have no need for “targeted advertising”. They can find what they need on their own just as fast. For the most part, I don’t see them “stealing identities”, but if their current user profile seems to be corrupt in some way, at some site or service, it’s no big deal, they just creat another “user profile”.

You won’t get these savy users to give up their true identity. Why should they?

Watching a group of technically savy college students peruse the internet can be very educational… Personally, I now regret being so “honest” with a lot of personal information I have inadvertantly supplied to the world-wide-web. In my case, the students taught the teacher!

http://twitter.com/skypulsemedia Howie at Sky Pulse Media

Forget philosophical reasons, and btw I am all for anonymity. But can’t anyone make up any name they want as an Alias and pass the Facebook or Google censors? This is the STUPIDEST thing ever. I can be Joe Smith or Angela Crayon right and they could never ever prove I am not. So why even have this Charade?

Anonymous

I find it funny that I totally agree “slucre” who said “If what you have to say is unpopular, it may be costly to speak up under your own name.” except our theological beliefs are reversed (I’m a Christian surrounded by fanatical, and frankly often hostile, atheists). There is, and will continue to be, great need to protect people from others who would abuse positions of power and influence. Sometimes the only way to provide a safe way for people to speak up is through anonymity.

Anonymous

I paiid $21.86 for an i Pad 2 32-GB and my girlfriend loves her Panasonic

Lumix GF 1 Camera that we got for $ 38.73 there arriving tomorrow by UPS.

I will never pay such expensive retail prices in stores again. Especially

when I also sold a 40 inch LED TV to my boss for $ 656 which only cost me

Use of this site is governed by our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Copyright 1996-2015 Ziff Davis, LLC.PCMag Digital Group All Rights Reserved. ExtremeTech is a registered trademark of Ziff Davis, LLC. Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission of Ziff Davis, LLC. is prohibited.